4 ms·

I think this is a perfectly appropriate critique regardless of the newly constructed "fallacy". If a problem is systemic, "whataboutism" is an appropriate crit

I think this is a perfectly appropriate critique regardless of the newly constructed "fallacy". If a problem is systemic, "whataboutism" is an appropriate critique (in lieu of being able to articulate the underlying issue) as it typically makes reference to something that is a populist concept, to be effective as a recognizable objection. In this case, the objection is apt and needs to be addressed with more than hand-waving because it's troubling. Saying "google is different because it helps shape culture" as opposed to Amazon's Chinese presence. Amazon's service is an opaque service-oriented mechanism...is an appropriate response.

ryandrake 8y ago
It’s not a rebuttal though. If I propose: “X is doing something bad and should stop.” And you respond with: “Y and Z are also doing that bad thing.” You’re neither denying X is doing the thing nor that it should stop. You’re not addressing the original proposal. I can just say “Yes, Y and Z are also doing that bad thing and should also stop.”
- yourbandsucks 8y ago
  Except we never hear about Y and Z. Let's say you lived in the Jim Crow south, and noticed that a lot of laws were only enforced against black people, despite being broken by white people all the time. Is it whataboutism to complain? It's worth noting when different rules seem to apply depending on who's involved.
- ArchTypical 8y ago
  > It’s not a rebuttal though. So what? Discussion doesn't consist solely of logical arguments (or arguments in total). There's a salient difference between "whataboutism" and a non sequitor. One has no way to continue the discussion (it changes to something else) and the other has an underlying set of issues that are likely beyond articulation of the poster, but exist nonetheless. > I can just say “Yes, Y and Z are also doing that bad thing and should also stop.” Then why not say that? The underlying issue is that there's reasons people are objecting to Google and not others. Responding with a dismissive reply devoid of content is a nonsequitor. Implying that the assertion is without merit because you object to the syntactical presentation, avoids the issues raised. e.g. Google helps steer culture and would necessarily have to actively enforce totalitarian and oppressive rules in China.

ryandrake 8y ago

It’s not a rebuttal though. If I propose: “X is doing something bad and should stop.” And you respond with: “Y and Z are also doing that bad thing.” You’re neither denying X is doing the thing nor that it should stop. You’re not addressing the original proposal. I can just say “Yes, Y and Z are also doing that bad thing and should also stop.”

yourbandsucks 8y ago
Except we never hear about Y and Z. Let's say you lived in the Jim Crow south, and noticed that a lot of laws were only enforced against black people, despite being broken by white people all the time. Is it whataboutism to complain? It's worth noting when different rules seem to apply depending on who's involved.
ArchTypical 8y ago
> It’s not a rebuttal though. So what? Discussion doesn't consist solely of logical arguments (or arguments in total). There's a salient difference between "whataboutism" and a non sequitor. One has no way to continue the discussion (it changes to something else) and the other has an underlying set of issues that are likely beyond articulation of the poster, but exist nonetheless. > I can just say “Yes, Y and Z are also doing that bad thing and should also stop.” Then why not say that? The underlying issue is that there's reasons people are objecting to Google and not others. Responding with a dismissive reply devoid of content is a nonsequitor. Implying that the assertion is without merit because you object to the syntactical presentation, avoids the issues raised. e.g. Google helps steer culture and would necessarily have to actively enforce totalitarian and oppressive rules in China.